J. KARL MILLER: Ten years without a terrorist attack since 9/11 is nothing to dismiss

I was not in the continental limits of the United States for the ceremonial remembrances of 9/11.

Instead, I was embarked aboard Holland America’s ms Rotterdam, cruising the North and Baltic Seas and visiting the ports of Rotterdam, Copenhagen, Tallinn, Helsinki, St. Petersburg and Stockholm.

I know, it was a trying and difficult task, but someone had to do it.

From what I could view over the limited television menu available and glean from excerpts in the ship’s library from The New York Times and the Internet, the memorials, for the most part, appeared to be tastefully and professionally done and attended by sober-minded and attentive crowds.

To be sure, there were the usual detractors with their claims that the attention devoted was far out of proportion or an unnecessary glorification of that attack.

I don't happen to be of that opinion, inasmuch as the majority of Americans fall into two categories in their remembrance of the reprehensible and cowardly attack, claiming the lives of more than 3,000 innocent victims.

The first and most affected category comprises of those who were either on the scene and viewed the carnage or those who lost loved ones to the suicidal maniacs piloting the aircraft.

The rest of us were and continue to be saddened and enraged that a nameless and faceless enemy would launch an unprovoked attack against our sovereign nation.

Among the more encouraging aspects of the memorial effort was the paucity in attendance, as well as in letters, blogs and demonstrations, of the certifiable “moon bat” fringe of deniers and “truthers.”

These are the malcontents who, presumably, crawl out of sewers and from under rocks to accuse the government of covering up its nefarious part in organizing and carrying out the attack in order to provide an excuse to go to war for oil. Their absence was most welcome.

The most reprehensible journalistic malfeasance was performed by The New York Times columnist Paul Krugman in his Sept. 11, 2010 piece entitled “The Years of Shame.”

He wrote: "The atrocity should have been a unifying event, but instead it became a wedge issue. Fake heroes like Bernie Kerik, Rudy Giuliani, and, yes, George W. Bush raced to cash in on the horror."

He closed by accusing the administration of using the attack to justify waging an unrelated war — sadly, some people cannot climb out of the gutter.

In reporting and remembering 9/11, a number of columnists and reporters continue to reiterate their claims that “overreaction” to the attack created a "climate of fear" among the people.

To prove this concept, they continually decry the passage of the Patriot Act and warrantless wiretaps as unnecessary and illegal assaults on our civil liberties.

Other contributions to fear-mongering include the assertions that preventive detention of suspects and the internment of prisoners who were not sentenced at Guantanamo further incite our enemies to commit violence.

I find this so called “climate of fear” infecting the United States to be overstated to the point of being laughable.

While it should be obvious that the Sept. 11, 2001 strikes at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon exposed a heretofore thought improbable vulnerability, I do not know nor have I met anyone who has permitted that possibility to force a change in lifestyle.

For those too young to remember, I offer the 1950s perceived threat of nuclear attack by Russia as a comparison. During those early Cold War years, “duck and cover” drills were taught in the schools. As a civil defense response, students would drop and crawl to covered positions.

Additionally, many families built elaborate bomb shelters and stocked them with food, water, bedding and clothing in preparation for an impending atomic bomb drop.

I don't know nor have I heard of anyone who has gone to those lengths for self protection in recent years.

The notion that the Patriot Act and warrantless wiretapping of certain overseas communications has compromised civil liberties is largely limited to those who fail to understand the common-sense application of the Constitution or to those who don aluminum foil headwear and see black helicopters overhead.

I have never felt threatened by the provisions of the Patriot Act and if one of my neighbors/countrymen is communicating with a terrorist state, I want my president or his designated representative to be aware of it.

There will always be differences of opinion as to the best option for the aftermath of 9/11.

Nevertheless, it is a matter of record that beginning with the bombing of the Marine and Navy barracks in Lebanon, and continuing with the first attempt at the Twin Towers, the USS Cole and attacks on our embassies, there was no retaliation against the pipsqueak perpetrators until President Bush, with the support of Congress, struck back after 9/11.

It is also a matter of record that since we retaliated with war on the terrorists, supplementing our national security and defense with the Patriot Act, warrantless wiretapping, detention for probable cause of suspects and imprisoning unlawful combatants at Guantanamo, we have not been attacked.

These safeguards, initiated by former President Bush, have been continued by President Obama — it is hardly a coincidence that we have enjoyed 10 years free of terrorist attack.

J. Karl Miller of Columbia retired as a colonel in the Marine Corps. He can be reached via e-mail at JKarlUSMC@aol.com.

Wondering if the Colonel went through an enhanced patdown on his recent excursion? That possibility keeps me from flying with my kids, as can be witnessed by video of six year-old girls getting patted down by TSA agents on YouTube. I knew security theater was still rampant when I made my only post-9/11 flight about two years ago and saw we were still having people remove their shoes.

After doing a little refreshing of the memory, the Colonel is also incorrect about this claim:

"Nevertheless, it is a matter of record that beginning with the bombing of the Marine and Navy barracks in Lebanon, and continuing with the first attempt at the Twin Towers, the USS Cole and attacks on our embassies, there was no retaliation against the pipsqueak perpetrators until President Bush, with the support of Congress, struck back after 9/11."

What about those 66 cruise missiles that Clinton had fired at bin Laden's training camps after the emabassy bombings?

Terrorists would have to take down a fully loaded Airbus A380 every 3-4 days to match our daily average highway death toll. Yet people hop in their cars every day without care, then submit to expensive, intrusive scans and pat-downs once we arrive at the airports, out of fear.

This isn't rational risk assessment. This is being successfully terrorized.

Our national reaction to Silent Spring is probably the source of even greater fear than terrorism, yet the death toll from pesticides and chemicals is an infinitesimal fraction of the death toll from cars (and probably less than 9/11 itself). Same with nuclear power.

J. Schultz - "What about those 66 cruise missiles that Clinton had fired at bin Laden's training camps after the emabassy bombings? I think he missed and hit an aspirin factory.

Clinton: 1st World Trade Center bombing - 1993 Bombing of the US Embassy in Saudi Arabia - 1995Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia - 1995Bombing of the US Embassies in Africa - 1998Bombing of the USS Cole - 2000

One writer states that after each of these five attacks, Clinton promised that the perps would be caught and prosecuted! One was convicted of 1st WTC attack killing 6. Clinton never ever visited the site, in person.

Clinton,s #2 Atty Gen., Eric Holder worked for the law firm that defended the 9/11 detainees and was prominent in that effort. If R's are as concerned with justice for culprits as D's claim to be, Holder will soon join "Scooter" Libby in a conviction for lying to Congress. Holder, about when he learned about U.S. sales of guns to Mexican drug cartels. Why are You defending Clinton about Anything?

You may be glad to know, "Updated Wednesday, Sep 14 at 6:44 AM

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Children 12 years old and younger soon will no longer be required to remove their shoes at airport security checkpoints, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano told Congress on Tuesday. The policy also includes other ways to screen young children without resorting to a pat-down that involves touching private areas on the body."

Fogle is spraying his lib crap again. Should we send our Drones after those highway killers?

Mark Foecking - Reaction to Rachael Carson's "Silent Spring" was not Nat'l, as in "the people". The reaction was from "the environmentalists". Clinton's EPA director, wacko, Carol Browner, held it while being sworn in to the post and in words after, bemoaned that 20 years after R.C's book we still have not -something like, "saved our planet from pollution."

You are aware that the enviro creation of the DDT prohibition around the world is the cause of death of millions annually from malaria. W. Bush tried to help the Africans by the only means, sending millions of mosquito nets!

Well, then why is organic produce such a big business? All the people that fear chemicals in their food can't be environmentalists.

"something like, "saved our planet from pollution."

We've pretty much saved ourselves from pollution (and have for the last 20 years or so), but there are still places in the world that are very polluted. One is our greatest supplier of manufactured goods (China). We've basically just moved the pollution over there. But I agree, we worry too much about tiny risks. In fact, that's what I was pointing out previously.

Acttually, DDT was never prohibited in most of the world. It is still manufactured in India. The UN and ither US agencies tried to defund or otherwise restrict its use following Silent Spring, but some of that has now changed in that we understand there is a tradeoff of risk between malaria and potential health effects of DDT.

The main problem was resistance, and restrictions on agricultural use helped with that problem. Even in the case of resistance, DDT tends to repel mosquitoes from inside houses. It's like any other tool - it can be used wisely or indiscriminately.

Mark F. - Malaria Foundation Internat'l writing about a UN treaty trying to ban DDT world wide, which they had "beaten": "The official mandate of the treaty was to "reduce and/or eliminate" twelve POPs, of which DDT was one. This led groups such as Greenpeace, World Wildlife Fund, Physicians for Social Responsibilty and over 300 other environmental organizations to advocate for a total DDT ban, starting as early as 2007 in some cases." Please note,Mark, UN & environmentalists!

You should see that "saved our planet from pollution" was my condensation of Browner's mouthings. (She cost us $600,000 from a judgement on discrimination in workplace. A well qualified black woman was never promoted because Browner apparently only promoted white, men.) I am wondering how much organic food was being produced in early 70's when DDT was banned in U.S. by EPA. "It's like any other tool - it can be used wisely or indiscriminately" Not if Government won't allow it. I read the book twice to assure myself again that nearly every case that she used to describe "over use", it was Government programs that used it. Also, in nearly every case Government went to the private sector to clean it up.

John S. - Did you not note the five terrorist attacks I listed, beginning in 1993 thru 2000, all on Clinton's watch. The 1998 embassy bombing is the one that drew the missile fire from Clinton. Is this not 1 out of 5?

Our Marines in Lebanon were part of a U.N. Multinational Force including French. The French performed an air-strike against a suspected position. A joint mission to strike another suspected position was scrubbed for lack of evidence that the culprits were located there. Reagan moved the Marines to our ships off-shore and apologized to the Nation publicly for allowing our loss. Nothing else was done.

- Embassy bombing in Africa - four terrorists linked to al Qaeda captured and in prison in the U.S., three in prison in the UK, 14 indicted and at large, most have since been killed.

- USS Cole - Yemen refused to allow FBI to have access to suspects. Several have since been killed.

Clinton's foreign policy record was less than stellar and he appointed Wolsey and Deutch, two of the worst CIA directors in the history of the Agency. But, he did not do "nothing" on terrorism. In fact, he did quite a lot.

I believe I made it quite clear in my column to wit: "Nevertheless, it is a matter of record that beginning with the bombing of the Marine and Navy barracks in Lebanon, and continuing with the first attempt at the Twin Towers, the USS Cole and attacks on our embassies, there was no retaliation against the pipsqueak perpetrators until President Bush, with the support of Congress, struck back after 9/11.

Inasmuch as President Reagan was CINC, he is included among those who failed to react. And, I don't consider the launching of 66 cruise missles w/o targets to be a serious retaliation. The destruction of an aspirin factory and a few Bedouin tents hardly merits consideration,

Karl - If you mean we did not invade any countries under the guise of the "Global War on Terrorism" then you are correct. That was a Bush thing. If you think that no reprisals were ever conducted against terrorists or terrorist organizations under Clinton, then you are absolutely wrong. The counterterrorism program expanded far more under Clinton than it did under Bush and there were many very successful operations.

Mr Robinson - In my opinion You are delivering the "crap" to these readers. All of your stellar acts by B. Clinton, were not instituted by B. Clinton. They were reactions to the crimes as was the policy of Clinton/Gore and would be the policy the U.S. government had Gore won the election of 2000. Would you deny theirs,C/G was the policy of seek out, arrest and convict the perpetrator of every terrorist attack? W. Bush's determination after 9/11, to protect the American people, was the same as any mechanic, farmer, or honest politician, to cure any problem one goes to the source of that problem. Do you deny this? If you do are you one of those that demands prosecution of the Bush Administration for their decision? If this answer is yes, you have earned my disgust.

Rob Robinson says: "Karl - If you mean we did not invade any countries under the guise of the "Global War on Terrorism" then you are correct. That was a Bush thing."

Well, thank whatever deity you pray to that The One corrected that, in his tenure since 1/20/09. It's still "a Bush thing." To be continued.

It is true that the right wrongly downplays the anti-Islamist counter-terrorist actions of Clinton and Obama. It is equally true that the left wrongly dismisses the successes of same by Bush. For several years, we witnessed Bush Derangement Syndrome. Now, we see some Obama Derangement Syndrome. The commonality is in the middle word.

The 66 cruise missiles were fired at a time when the Lewinsky escapades were taking a heavy media toll on President Clinton. Clinton ordered the action three days after appearing before the grand jury investigating the Monica Lewinsky affair. Mainstream media outlets and left leaning journalists like Hitchens, Dowd, and The New Republic’s editors suggested that Clinton acted because of threat of impeachment. As a matter of fact, when the attacks were executed, Clinton took the very unusual step of going to the White House press room to personally tell them of his actions. The hilarious thing is that the WH press corps was watching the movie Wag the Dog at that moment, and at first they thought Clinton was joking.

All that being said, we have not prevented several attacks. We have merely been lucky that several Islamic terrorists have had their devices fail to function properly. If they had, would would have several hundred more dead to grieve for.

Finally, Tim Dance, for heaven's sake, before you look any more foolish, look at the left wing manifesto that Joseph Stack wrote before he crashed his plane into the IRS building:

" I saw it written once that the definition of insanity is repeating the same process over and over and expecting the outcome to suddenly be different. I am finally ready to stop this insanity. Well, Mr. Big Brother IRS man, let’s try something different; take my pound of flesh and sleep well.

The communist creed: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

The capitalist creed: From each according to his gullibility, to each according to his greed.

Frank - First of all, everything I said should be easily verified with a simple google search.

Regarding the Clinton policy of treating terrorists as criminals, you are correct. However, that policy was started by Reagan and continued by GHW Bush before Clinton.

Reagan used the capture and rendition of Fawaz Younis, in Sep. 1987, to establish his "Long Arm of the Law" policy provided by the Antiterrorism Act of 1986.

Every country in the world, except the U.S., treats terrorists as criminals. Only the Bush Administration considered our Constitution and judicial system to be inadequate to deal with terrorists.

The military action against al Qaeda and the Talaban following 9/11 was most certainly justified. The invation of Iraq was not. The killing of bin Ladin and al Awlaki were both justified, even though al Awlaki was a U.S. citizen. The treatment of Jose Padilla, also a U.S. citizen, was not justified.

Terrorism is not black and white. It is a large gray area and response to terrorism must be appropriate for the circumstances. You cannot have a one-size-fits-all policy. All terrorists are not alike, if we can't understand that we will continue to fight a futile battle against an elusive enemy.

R. Robinson - Why the reference to Google on the arrests? I never questioned them.

You presented the Anti-terrorism Act of 1986. I noted Reagan's signing statement included: "confront this criminal behavior in every way -- diplomatically, economically, legally, and, when necessary, *militarily.*"

"Every country in the world, except the U.S., treats terrorists as criminals." and are not those countries the ones in which the bombs continue to explode killing thousands?

"Terrorism is not black and white. It is a large gray area and response to terrorism must be appropriate for the circumstances." You are the one painting the situation in two colors. The threat must only be addressed by waiting for a bomb to explode, then apprehend the culprit (if still alive) and prosecute to the full extent of the law. Al Gore's prescribed cure, while J Kerry proclaims we will reduce terrorism to a "nuisance".

W. Bush had 6 reasons to invade Iraq. Had the votes in U.N. but was faced with the promised veto of France's Chirac imbedded with Saddam business-wise and now on trial in his country for corruption. He went to war in Iraq with the support of 90 countries.

You refer to the war as a "guise" with only the same "it was wrong because Bush did it" whine as evidence. It gets so tiring seeing the old LEFT wing meme resurface time and again.

"Please be civil and refrain from profanities and name-calling..." --User policy for commenting to the Missourian.

"certifiable “moon bat” fringe of deniers and “truthers.”

malcontents who, presumably, crawl out of sewers and from under rocks

those who don aluminum foil headwear and see black helicopters overhead."

-- J. Karl Miller

'Appeal to the ridiculous': a common logic error in which stating that something is ridiculous is not proof that it is in fact ridiculous, often successful because it provides an emotional pull in which the listener accepts the emotion without considering facts.

Frank - Not sure if you are being intentionally obtuse or just don't understand what I'm trying to explain. You highlight "militarily" but fail to see that Reagan obviously intended military intervention to be a last resort and only used "when necessary."

Countries that treat terrorists as criminals are having thousands killed by bombs. Well, no, they are not.

You suggest that I favor waiting for a bomb to explode and then try to apprehend the culprit. Well, that's just hyperbole. That's not what I said at all. I said that in order to deal with terrorism we must understand that all terrorists are not alike and they must be delt with according to the circumstances. Whether that is apprehension, killing them or invading the country that harbors them depends on the circumstances.

I have tried to provide some insight into what actually happened and not to simply glorify Clinton or vilify Bush as you seem to think I am doing. Political tribalism makes discussion very difficult.

'Appeal to the ridiculous': a common logic error in which stating that something is ridiculous is not proof that it is in fact ridiculous, often successful because it provides an emotional pull in which the listener accepts the emotion without considering facts._____________________________________

Not always a logical error. See: Res ipsa loquitur.

Sometimes things are so ridiculous that the thing speaks for itself...like progressive economic policies which are not so progressive. Regressive comes to mind, tho.

Rob R. - What does "It gets so tiring seeing the old rightwing meme resurface", sound like to you? It sounds like "Political tribalism" to me.

What I have done in my answers to you is to examine each point of yours and give reasons why I believe you are wrong. Obtuse? I didn't think so. But, it seems we must start again. You added "last resort" to Reagan's statement "when necessary, militarily." Neither Reagan,HWB, nor Clinton ever had the tragedy that occurred 8 months into an Administration that was held up weeks until FL Supreme Court's illegal vote counting was stopped. W. Bush must have felt our Military was only way to break up al Qaeda and their ability to plan attack after attack with only goal being to kill as many human beings as possible. I somehow got the idea that you felt Clinton, "In fact, he did quite a lot." Was up to his task, but "Only the Bush Administration considered our Constitution and judicial system to be inadequate to deal with terrorists." and started a war as a "guise". Bush promoted Democracy around the world and whether you can admit it or not, governments have and still are changing, throwing out the tyrants for democracy in the ME, Iraq notwithstanding.

If you think I implied that, "I favor waiting for a bomb to explode and then try to apprehend the culprit." and you do not, then what would be your best suggestion for eradication of this threat?

Mr Allen, the "Please be civil and refrain from profanities and name-calling..." User policy for commenting to the Missourian refers to the comments by on line responders to one another. My opinion column had no profanity and did no individual name calling, rather it merely was descriptive of my views of certain groups.

If one or more of those descriptions hit too close to home, it was unintentional inasmuch as I have never met you, thus have formed no opinion.

Colonel, good to see you again. About that wiretapping, how many of you know that it got it's nickname, as Lincoln started it during the Civil War. Telegraph- hence "tapping".Many comments on the Millions of dollars Cliton blew tossing missiles at "targets". Nobody mentions the 3 times that Clinton passed on nabbing Binny! The CIA could have taken him out in '94..no green light from Billy. People talk about Kennedy going chicken during the "Bay of Pigs", but Clinton going chicken costed us thousands of lives. Let them keep the Patriot Act, I have nothing to hide.